TRIFKOVIC: The problem with his book (The Enemy at Home) is primarily that Dinesh denounces me and my friend Robert Spencer for writing about Islam the way we do. What is truly remarkable for an intellectual is that he does not do so on the basis of any failure on our part to offer empirical evidence for our fundamental thesis  which is that Islam is inherently aggressive, racist, violent, and intolerant  but rather that this shouldn't be allowed to be published, because it undermines the possibility of establishing some mythical alliance with the conservative Muslims. The problem there is that a conservative Muslim is obviously a person inherently opposed to any rationalistic revision of the Kuran or the Sunna, or any reinterpretation of Islam in the way that would enable it to be reformed. What we have is a self-proclaimed "conservative," here in the United States, acting in exactly the same way as... that reminds me of my youth under communism in Tito's Yugoslavia, denouncing a certain approach to a subject purely on the grounds of its alleged ideological unacceptability. He uses the term "Islamophobia"  which is a classic term invented by the Race Relations Industry, by the very people of the Left that he seeks to denounce. Once you subscribe to the term "Islamophobia" all debates about Islam cease, because the only valid definition of "Islamophobia" is the one offered by those people he blames for 9-11!

D'SOUZA: One of the problems here is a little bit of paranoia. These guys, Spencer, Serge, have been running around basically saying I am trying to silence them, whereas all I am doing is disagreeing with them. In my book I say this: we can't win the War on Terror without driving a wedge between the radical Muslims and the traditional Muslims... There are many Muslims who are very different from the stereotypical Muslim that Serge and Spencer feature in their work. My point is simply this: ultimately I think that we have to draw traditional Muslims away from radical Islam, because the radical Muslims are fishing in the pool of traditional Islam. So for this reason I think that these attacks on Islam  the Koran [sic!] is a gospel of violence, Mohammed [sic!] is the inventor of terrorism  they are not just tactically foolish, they are historically wrong because Islam has been around for thirteen hundred years, Islam radicalism was invented in the 1920s, and came to power in 1979. How can we blame the Prophet Mohammad for things that Khomeini and Bin Laden are saying, that are very new. Historian Bernard Lewis points out that radical Islam is a radical break with traditional Islam. Never before have Muslim mullahs, or clergymen, ever ruled a Muslim country. All Muslim countries have been ruled by non-clergymen until Khomeini. So I think the flaw we see in this work and in the Islamophobic literature is that it tries to link the early centuries of Islam. It cherry-picks the Koran and finds all the violent passages, leaves out all the peaceful passages, and then basically concedes to Bin Laden that he is the true Muslim, that his reading of the Koran is correct, and it pushes the traditional Muslims towards the radical camp by denouncing their religion. Then we complain all these traditional Muslims [indistinct] ... by denouncing Islam itself.

TRIFKOVIC: This is really rich. First of all, to claim that the Kuran is a pacifist tract...

D'SOUZA: I didnt say it's a pacifist tract.

TRIFKOVIC: Well, you do say that people like Spencer and I pick and choose. Have you actually read the Kuran? Have you ever actually read the Kuran?

D'SOUZA: Of course I have.

TRIFKOVIC: Do you know how are the Suras arranged?

D'SOUZA: They are... er... they are not arranged in any chronological order... er... [pause] and... er... [pause] and so I quote in my book both the violent and...

TRIFKOVIC: Just tell me how ARE they arranged.

D'SOUZA: The other point...

TRIFKOVIC: Can you just tell me how are the Suras arranged?

D'SOUZA: ... right. You can't just call...

TRIFKOVIC: Why don't you just tell me how are the Suras arranged?

HENNEN: OK, one at a time here; your question for Dinesh, Serge, is?

TRIFKOVIC: In what order are the Suras arranged in the Kuran?

D'SOUZA: [long silence] I really don't know what you mean by that. When you say "in what order" then... err... [pause] there...

TRIFKOVIC: ... an interlocutor who tries to pass authoritative judgments on the subject is refusing to tell me how are the Suras and the verses of the Kuran arranged. They happen to be arranged by SIZE, from short to long!

I may be wrong and for sure I will check but I believe it is long to short. That is why much of the "beginning" is at the end because the first writings were short. I'll check and feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

4
posted on 03/06/2007 3:27:08 PM PST
by Freeper
(I was culture in the 60's and now with Clinton "running things" I am suddenly Counter-Culture.)

"I may be wrong and for sure I will check but I believe it is long to short".

I'll double-check too, but I think that you may be right and Srdija might be wrong -- which is stunning given that the Sword of the Prophet goes through much of the Koran, line by line. If it is wrong, it must have been a slip of the tongue on his part -- because he does know the Koran!

I correct myself. Sorry for any confusion. It is short to long. Never the less still interesting.

The Qur'an is the collection of holy scriptures of Islam. It is divided into 114 Suras (chapters) of unequal length. Except for the first Sura the earliest Meccan suras are shorter, and they each grow longer as time goes on. The earliest are also more similar to the Jewish style of admonishing people to reform and warning them of coming judgment. All suras are supposed to represent material dictated to Muhammad from God through the angel Gabriel. The Qur'an is thus believed to be the direct Word of God and must be obeyed without question.

11
posted on 03/06/2007 6:42:53 PM PST
by Freeper
(I was culture in the 60's and now with Clinton "running things" I am suddenly Counter-Culture.)

The following is a description (slightly modified) from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness.

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs [Europe, Australia, USA and Japan]. Six percent of US prison inmates are Muslim. Like any other minority, they wont integrate, but work to build their own separate community.

It's how it works! Once they hit the 4% - 5% mark, they begin to push -- hard.

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves (along with threats for failure to comply).

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world, but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. (Paris car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats.

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya (infidel tax). (Sudan, Kosovo, Lebanon and Egypt).

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide [Sudan, Western Papua (New Guinea), Biafra, Turkey and North Nigeria].

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" - House of Peace - as in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

"Nevertheless though, I do know peacefull Muslims. Maybe they are not "good Muslims" as in fundamentalist Muslims but they are peacefull and Americanized."

Humans are humans and people may not be born with full-blown personalities, but they are born with temperaments. Some from birth, are just more easy-going and quiet. And others, scream their way into the world and are still screaming the day they leave it. And Muslims are no different from every other human that walks the earth in this aspect of naturally "peaceful" personalities verses naturally "aggressive" personalities .

However, Islam itself, unlike most other religions, was not founded by a pacifist(passive, easy-going & quiet), it was founded by a warrior (a screamer). Give a person who is by nature "passive, easy-going & quiet" a screamer religion, and he may not go crazy -- he may be "a peaceful Muslim". But give to "a screamer" a screamer religion and you've got a big problem!

Actually, according to Trifkovic, you were right the first time. From the PGalt's Jihad Watch link above:

"Meanwhile, Serge tells me: "To avoid misunderstanding, let me point out that my 'explanation' to D'Souza about the arrangement of the Suras in the Kuran ('They happen to be arranged by SIZE, from short to long!') was not a slip, it was the final proof-positive of his fraud, as HE DID NOT CORRECT ME but went on babbling..."

Kind of funny. Srdija gave D'Souza enough rope to hang himself and he obliged!

Dinesh is right. If we think all Muslims are evil and that their religion in all forms is inherently evil, whey are we fighting to defend Muslims’ right to vote and set up a government in Iraq? Why did we care that Saddam was brutally repressing his population - a Muslim population - in Iraq? Our policy in Iraq is premised on precisely what Dinesh is saying - that there are “good” Muslims whom we can and should ally with.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.